VERDICT WATCH UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #29

[JosieJo]

I'm now hazarding a guess at Wednesday next week

 

[Supernovae]

Sorry to trouble you, but would you be kind enough to give me some details about that group of nurses please? I'd like to look them up. TIA

This case was mentioned on another site:

https://annarborobserver.com/va-murders-revisited/

Not that I'm 100% convinced that it was both, or even one of them.

 

[Supernovae]

How long does a jury take to reach a verdict? | Nick Barraclough

Jury in a crown court trial: expert defence criminal barrister in London comments on how long a jury will take to reach a verdict in a criminal case.

www.nickbarracloughbarrister.co.uk

In a case I did last week the jury took about 15 minutes to acquit my client. Whilst I too would have found my client not guilty, I was surprised at the swiftness of the verdict because all 12 jurors had to agree on the verdict.
Clients in the Crown Court often ask how long the jury will take to reach a verdict. Frankly, you don’t have to be a lawyer to answer that question, for they can take as long as they want. Within reason. If jurors really can’t reach agreement then they will be ‘discharged’ and a re-trial will probably follow.

Though my recent verdict was swift, it was not my fastest. My record is 6 minutes. From discussions with fellow barristers, that seems to be pretty close to am all-time record – there wasn’t even time for a juror to have a cigarette.

Conversely, my longest wait for a jury was 18 days. It was said at the time to have been the longest ever known at the Old Bailey.

So when a client asks how long the jury will be out for, its always tempting to reply “anywhere between 6 minutes and 18 days”.

 

[crystalline]

Still in the game -

35h 25m - @Dotta
41h 15m - @Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc
45h 10m - @esther43
58h - @Jw192
70h - @bobbymkii
75h - @CS2C
80h - @V347

Anyhow....looks like @Dotta (and the shredder) will be booted to the loosers corner tomorrow?

I'm backing @V347 now

 

[Dotta]

Anyhow....looks like @Dotta (and the shredder) will be booted to the loosers corner tomorrow?

I'm backing @V347 now

Don't be soooo quick!

It might be that the verdicts are ready and to be announced at NOON tomorrow!
Ha!

 

[Kemug]

And eating a LOT of boiled eggs.
It’s the cuisine of choice for prisoners as they can’t be messed with if you get my drift.
I would be screwed as I hate eggs ( except in cakes obviously ! )

Another exception - double choc chip cookies!

 

[Kittybunny]

Length of Deliberations Predictions

Mon 10th - day 1 (afternoon only) - 2pm to 4pm minus 5mins = 1h 55m
Tue 11th - day 2 - 4h 20m
Wed 12th - day 3 - 4h 20m
Thu 13th - day 4 - 4h 20m
Fri 14th - day 5 - 4h 20m
Mon 24th - day 6 - 4h 20m
Tue 25th - day 7 - 4h 20m
Wed 26th - day 8 - 4h 15m
Thu 27th - day 9 - 4h 20m

Running total = 36h 30m


Still in the game -

35h 25m - @Dotta
41h 15m - @Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc
45h 10m - @esther43
58h - @Jw192
70h - @bobbymkii
75h - @CS2C
80h - @V347

I'm going to back @CS2C ... they were in court so I'm going with the hopes they have special luck from being in the presence of the jury!

 

[RichardKimble]

Not necessarily .... There is enough evidence to reasonably believe that babies were being attacked over and over, with some dying and some recovering.

The problem is that some of the babies had complex medical issues so in a couple of the cases it is not clear cut. But that does not mean that NONE of them were attacked. Nor does it mean that ALL of them were attacked. It just means that some of the circumstances make it harder to differentiate than others.

Just maybe then that some of the cases are so hard to determine that it's beyond an ordinary member of Joe Public to understand the complexities even after expert witness testimony to apportion guilt, not wishing or intending to slight any jury member.

Hmmm odds on no verdicts in some and retrial?

 

[esther43]

Just maybe then that some of the cases are so hard to determine that it's beyond an ordinary member of Joe Public to understand the complexities even after expert witness testimony to apportion guilt, not wishing or intending to slight any jury member.

Hmmm odds on no verdicts in some and retrial?

Child H is a classic example of being hard to call from a layman's perspective.
I hope that the other cases come across to the jury as out of the ordinary. Gibbs was strong in his description of survival rates in respect of the triplets.
He said "a baby of 33 weeks' gestation would normally have higher than a 99 per cent chance of survival at birth. This was a 33-week gestation baby on Day 4 of life and he'd been very well'.

This was in complete contrast to letby's comments heard on the podcast when she was texting a friend.

Friend: 'oh no, we don't seem to have much luck with 33/34 weekers'

LL: 'its a difficult gestation'

I just hope that it's landed with the jury that at least 6 of the babies were over 33wks and they keep that number in mind.

 

[marynnu]

Friend: 'oh no, we don't seem to have much luck with 33/34 weekers'

LL: 'its a difficult gestation'

That was a ludicrous comment by LL IMO. Like saying a massive gastric bleed 'could happen to any baby'. I wonder what her colleague thought about it?

 

[Kemug]

Just maybe then that some of the cases are so hard to determine that it's beyond an ordinary member of Joe Public to understand the complexities even after expert witness testimony to apportion guilt, not wishing or intending to slight any jury member.

Hmmm odds on no verdicts in some and retrial?

OMG, I hope not!

 

[esther43]

That was a ludicrous comment by LL IMO. Like saying a massive gastric bleed 'could happen to any baby'. I wonder what her colleague thought about it?

It must be so frustrating for colleagues who are looking back on her behaviours and texts.
I feel she exploited colleagues, Dr harness, Dr Ventress and Dr Choc and obvs the nurses too.
In defending his mistakes, Dr harness said that he thought some things were 'normal' and only after moving from CoC did he realise that particular things were NOT happening to babies elsewhere.
Imagine having that much control over people.
It just keeps bringing me back to the 'why would you even want to?
Sometimes, I think it as simple as she thought she was the best, wanted to be the best and saw herself as having the potential to run the unit.
Perhaps she faced barriers to her career progression so acted to ensure she was the recognised, shining star.

 

[katydid23]

Just maybe then that some of the cases are so hard to determine that it's beyond an ordinary member of Joe Public to understand the complexities even after expert witness testimony to apportion guilt, not wishing or intending to slight any jury member.

Hmmm odds on no verdicts in some and retrial?

I think it is possible that some cases will not have unanimous verdicts. And some may never get to resolution.

I am hoping that the vast majority come to a verdict. But one or more might fall through the cracks.

 

[Dotta]

Sometimes, I think it as simple as she thought she was the best, wanted to be the best and saw herself as having the potential to run the unit.
Perhaps she faced barriers to her career progression so acted to ensure she was the recognised, shining star.

If guilty....

IMO
It was much more than that.
It was psychological need.
I still remember reading about her animation, excitement when dealing with dead Babies.
As if it was some reward to an addict.

Allegedly of course.

JMO

 

[esther43]

If guilty....

IMO
It was much more than that.
It was psychological need.
I still remember reading about her animation, excitement when dealing with dead Babies.
As if it was some reward to an addict.

JMO

I think it's possible that the two concepts can co-exist, that there can be 'drivers' as well as side effects. Or perhaps as you say the 'effect' is the driver.
The betting on the grand national and going salsa dancing are both ideas that have a 'fun' element to them.
After loosing a baby did LL really want to have fun or was she trying to appear normal?
It certainly speaks both of her need and ability to switch off.
I wish they'd have called more witnesses to testify of her mood that evening at Salsa.

 

[Dotta]

I think it's possible that the two concepts can co-exist, that there can be 'drivers' as well as side effects. Or perhaps as you say the 'effect' is the driver.
The betting on the grand national and going salsa dancing are both ideas that have a 'fun' element to them.
After loosing a baby did LL really want to have fun or was she trying to appear normal?
It certainly speaks both of her need and ability to switch off.
I wish they'd have called more witnesses to testify of her mood that evening at Salsa.

And I really hope that she had a thorough psychiatric assessment.
Or will have.
If guilty of course.

JMO

 

[Parker Knoll]

I don’t think we will ever know the reasons behind all of this if she is in fact Guilty.
I stopped asking myself “ why ? “ ages ago.

 

[Dotta]

I don’t think we will ever know the reasons behind all of this if she is in fact Guilty.
I stopped asking myself “ why ? “ ages ago.

But it is important to know whether a crime was comitted b/c of base motives or psychiatric condition.

Generally speaking.

JMO

 

[Parker Knoll]

It is agreed Dotta but we will probably never know.
The defence have never put forward anything other than she simply did not do it.
Evaluations would come later if she was found guilty which we would never be privy to or IF on conviction we heard evidence that wasn’t presented at trial for whatever reason.

 

[Tortoise]

If she is found guilty I would expect sentencing to be delayed for psychiatric evaluation and sentencing remarks to cover whatever that turns up. A lot of that would depend on her cooperation though. If guilty.

Benjamin Field's sentencing was delayed by two months for psychiatric evaluation. He was diagnosed with narcissistic and psychopathic personality disorders. The sentencing remarks can be read here - https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Sentencing-Remarks-R-v-Field-FINALdocx.pdf